HistoryofTruth.com - Armenian Allegations

Turkish foreign policy has long ignored the Armenian genocide dispute, adopting an indifferent approach to claims raised by the Armenian diaspora and ambitious efforts to ensure the recognition of mass killings in the early 20th century in Ottoman territories as a crime of 'genocide.'

Negligent foreign policy design has up until recently remained silent regarding these efforts, suggesting that the makers of Turkish foreign policy did not consider this a problem at all. Apparently Turkey is now paying the price for the long-standing negligence and historical mistakes as it becomes evident that the genocide claims have developed to undermine Turkey’s prestige in world politics and its ambitions to become a leading actor in the international arena.

This determination, above all, indicates that Turkey admits the existence of the problem; and for this reason alone, the recent initiatives are important and deserve further attention. The greatest mistake that Turkish foreign-policy makers made with respect to the Armenian genocide dispute so far was that they gave an impression that suggested there was no such problem for Turkey. In fact, this state of negligence is a general problem from which Turkish foreign policy has been suffering for decades. In other words, the administrators of the Turkish foreign policy apparatus assumed the absence of the problem rather than taking the proper measures to address it. In the absence of diplomatic efforts by Turkish foreign policy actors, the problems have grown into serious threats in the venues where Turkey has remained inactive. This is also more or less the case with the Armenian genocide dispute. Turkey has for a long time not acknowledged the existence of an Armenian genocide issue; however, it developed a superficial policy to deal with the problem when it observed that the number of countries recognizing the claims has grown, implying that this could become a visible threat to its national interests. The late recognition of the problem and the ungrounded response to the emerging threat have led to some mistakes.

Some major mistakes

1- Failure to discuss the issue within an objective context: With respect to the genocide claims, Turkey has historically voiced a pretty disturbing discourse in an attempt to defend its position, which has attracted a great deal of reaction. This further ensured the consolidation of the Armenian claims and the growth of international support for the cause seeking recognition of an Armenian genocide. Promoters of the Armenian genocide claims, i.e., the Armenian diaspora, were able to advance their cause because of this disturbing attitude and to present Turkey as a country denying committing the worst crime. In other words, Turkey failed to ensure a technical discussion of the issue, giving the impression that it ignored the anguish of the people who lost their relatives and the memories of those who died in deserts in the early 20th century. This eventually drew the reaction and attention of the world. However, had the makers of Turkish foreign policy adopted a more selective and careful discourse, explaining that the Armenians who vanished during the process of deportation were Ottomans whose death was a great loss for the cultural diversity and fabric of this land and argued that the killings could not be viewed as genocide from the perspective of international law, Turkey would have been far from its current poor image. However, the Turkish side has relied on a fairly nationalistic discourse which it pursued to blame the Armenians for what happened back then; some racist circles even implied that the Armenians who perished in that period got what they deserved.
2- Reliance on legally unconvincing arguments: Turkish foreign policy, unable to give a consistent and coherent stance vis-à-vis the Armenian genocide claims, has tried to respond to these claims by relying on some superficial legal arguments that could be considered inconsistent with the general rules and principles of international law. This seriously undermined Turkey’s credibility. The arguments and theses drafted without reviewing international literature on the crime of genocide and grasping the overall trends in recent developments in international criminal law did not serve Turkey’s interests and cause; quite the contrary, they contributed to the claims held by the Armenian diaspora. Emphasis on the argument that the crime of genocide is not retrospective was strategically wrong, and this argument drafted in reliance of a controversial issue from a legal standpoint further raised doubts as to whether Turkey is really well equipped to deal with the legal aspect of the issue. Even if it is agreed that the crime of genocide is not retrospective, relying on such a controversial argument and thesis would imply that Ottoman Turkey might have committed genocide but it is impossible to investigate the validity of such claims; this may be viewed as indirect acknowledgement of the Armenian assertions.

Eagerness to carry the issue to international legal mechanisms

In addition, Turkey’s eagerness to take the issue to the adjudication of international legal mechanisms does not refer to a well-crafted initiative. It is not a coherent and effective approach to point to a vague international judicial institution as if there is an international court or mechanism of arbitration ready to take care of the problem. It may seem appealing to argue that the Armenian genocide claims should be taken to international adjudication; however, those who refer to this option should also be able to name the institution that could address the dispute and the international instrument that this institution could rely on in the settlement of this dispute.

3- Failure to take political action despite the political nature of the issue: The Armenian genocide claims are, to a large extent, political; the involvement of foreign parliaments in the issue proves this. Turkey has been well aware of this. In fact, it should be noted that the Turkish side has made frequent references to the political dimension of the issue. However, paradoxically, despite this awareness, Turkish diplomacy has never considered any political measures to tackle this problem. The diplomatic ability and creativity of Turkey’s foreign policy establishment has been limited to the promotion of lobbying activities to ensure that the US Congress does not a pass a resolution recognizing the claims. However, what really needs to be done is to lay the foundations of a position in which recognition of the Armenian claims would not make any difference to Turkey’s bilateral relations with the US and its overall standing in world politics.

Obviously, this is not an easy task. In addition, the achievement of such an environment requires the existence of a proactive style of foreign policy. However, it seems that there is no other way to handle the Armenian genocide dispute. Turkish foreign policy, which has preferred adopting a defensive stance regarding the Armenian genocide claims and has abstained from developing an influential political style, failed to offer an attractive diplomatic solution. However, what should have been done was to rely on a discourse of active diplomacy and the development of political solutions instead of some incoherent legal arguments that proved futile; this is in fact what is being done in this new era. The protocols signed with Armenia could be viewed from this perspective although whether they will create some useful results still remains uncertain. This stance, developed outside the context of the genocide discussions, has forced the Armenian side to make additional moves despite the fact that it bears some risks. In the end, these moves will require political responses from the parties to the issue and will lead the way to the achievement of a definitive solution.

* Assistant Professor Cenap Çakmak teaches international law and politics at Eskişehir Osmangazi University and works as a senior researcher at the Wise Men Center for Strategic Research (BİLGESAM)